How many people would go for this if they could?

[dingdong]

I don't need religion. Theologically I need God. But in the interest of all I use religion as a cover term for God.

Simple - I need His grace and teachings.

For the brief period in my life that I was an atheist I was a useless person (I don't mean atheists are useless just myself cause people tend to misread my intentions). I was full of anger, hatred and everything a man shouldn't be. I was wasting my life away. One day God called me back everything started to fall back in place. Thats my reason.

So without your God you would be a bad person full of hate and anger, what did you hate and what were you angry about? (anymore than anyone else I mean) anyway, perhaps it's best that you keep your God then.

PS. Your God talked to you did he? or is that just a figure of speech?

 

[IceJad]

So without your God you would be a bad person full of hate and anger, what did you hate and what were you angry about? (anymore than anyone else I mean) anyway, perhaps it's best that you keep your God then.

PS. Your God talked to you did he? or is that just a figure of speech?

Are you serious? Or is this another sarcastic reply? What exactly are your intentions? I'll leave the interpretations up to you. If you want to believe that I'm just another person needing psychiatric help so be it.

 

[dingdong]

Are you serious? Or is this another sarcastic reply? What exactly are your intentions? I'll leave the interpretations up to you. If you want to believe that I'm just another person needing psychiatric help so be it.

I will leave that for others to decide.

 

[Watergirl]

For a small fee I will take all of your sins to Hell with me when I die, and I will even let you decide how much you pay me for each sin, what do you think? let me take the wrap, after all what have you got to lose?

I wouldn't because Jesus deserves the glory and I would not rob Him of that.

 

[Wirraway]

dingdong is a flake. I try to take her up on her offer and she runs away. she's clearly not interested in doing this deal.

very flakey.

 

[dingdong]

dingdong is a flake. I try to take her up on her offer and she runs away. she's clearly not interested in doing this deal.

very flakey.

I'm a flake?? it was you who took it seriously so what does that say about you?

 

[Wirraway]

I'm a flake?? it was you who took it seriously so what does that say about you?

it means you're a flake who didn't bother to run your troll thread very well.

 

[Ambrosius]

I've only read the first page of posts, but you obviously have a problem dingdong in that you are unable to think outside your box. You may see no evidence for god, which is good reason for you to not believe in one, but other people have experienced tangible reasons to believe in something, and it would be just as wrong, irrational and everything else for them to deny it as it is for you to affirm it. From your knowledge, they are wrong, but that does not mean they are in fact wrong, it just means it doesn't fit with your experiences and paradigm. That's ok. No one here says you have to believe in something that makes no sense to you. But you can't seem to appreciate that maybe someone else is right.

 

[dingdong]

I've only read the first page of posts, but you obviously have a problem dingdong in that you are unable to think outside your box.

By that do you mean I should abandon reality? or does 'outside the box' mean something else?

You may see no evidence for god, which is good reason for you to not believe in one, but other people have experienced tangible reasons to believe in something, and it would be just as wrong, irrational and everything else for them to deny it as it is for you to affirm it.

In that case would it be possible for all of you to show us these 'tangible reasons'? then we can all believe.

From your knowledge, they are wrong, but that does not mean they are in fact wrong, it just means it doesn't fit with your experiences and paradigm. That's ok. No one here says you have to believe in something that makes no sense to you. But you can't seem to appreciate that maybe someone else is right.

They are wrong because they are in fact wrong, they may think they're right but thinking and being are two different things.
I am always ready to admit that someone else is right but I can't do that when all they can do is TELL me they're right.
If I make a claim it's up to me to show that what I claim to be true is in fact true.
When I move my arms up and down I can fly, do you believe me?

 

[Ambrosius]

By that do you mean I should abandon reality? or does 'outside the box' mean something else?

In that case would it be possible for all of you to show us these 'tangible reasons'? then we can all believe.

They are wrong because they are in fact wrong, they may think they're right but thinking and being are two different things.
I am always ready to admit that someone else is right but I can't do that when all they can do is TELL me they're right.
If I make a claim it's up to me to show that what I claim to be true is in fact true.
When I move my arms up and down I can fly, do you believe me?

You still don't get it. I'm not saying you have to believe or anything remotely like that, I am saying you need to accept the possibility that someone else is right - not that you need to accept that they are right and adopt their beliefs, but that it's possible there's something you don't know of or - even - understand. What I'm saying has nothing to do with particular factual propositions so examples are pointless.

 

[Ambrosius]

Oh, and I didn't say "outside the box". I said outside your box. Completely different things (and shows you're not actually reading anything). Your box is your paradigm, worldview, philosophy, the set of answers you've chosen, whatever you call it.

 

[IceJad]

Guys give it up. No point to share your views. Its obvious she will not listen despite saying she will.

Self-righteous atheist = self-righteous religious man

In indoctrinated to hate God/religion with "prove" other people wrote or told them. Never once gave an honest chance to be in another person's shoe. Never accepting the other person's view as valid. Tend to be passive-aggressive in nature. Insisting people to accept her views by playing victim.

Passive–aggressive behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dingdong]

You still don't get it.

I don't get it because there is nothing to get, your God is in your mind which means all you can do is TALK about your God, if you stopped believing tomorrow where would your God go? it does happen you know.

I'm not saying you have to believe or anything remotely like that, I am saying you need to accept the possibility that someone else is right - not that you need to accept that they are right and adopt their beliefs, but that it's possible there's something you don't know of or - even - understand.

Well if I don't know about it how do you? and why can't you show me? is it because my mind is not receptive?

What I'm saying has nothing to do with particular factual propositions so examples are pointless.

'nothing to do with particular factual propositions' is another way of saying that it's all in your mind.

 

[SithDoughnut]

They are wrong because they are in fact wrong, they may think they're right but thinking and being are two different things.
I am always ready to admit that someone else is right but I can't do that when all they can do is TELL me they're right.
If I make a claim it's up to me to show that what I claim to be true is in fact true.
When I move my arms up and down I can fly, do you believe me?

Problem is that you just made a positive claim yourself, so now it's up to you to prove that God does not exist. You can claim that there is insufficient evidence, but you cannot then come to a conclusion that God does not exist without providing evidence of your own.

Your example is also useless because if refers to something for which evidence can be used against you. However, even though I can use information about the human body and other such evidence as examples as for why it is incredibly unlikely that you can fly, I cannot outright claim that you cannot. When we're talking about God, even that little bit of evidence I had no longer exists - flying is tangible, God is not.

There is certainly no reason for you to believe in a God. However, you cannot claim there is no God without giving reasons of your own. I am an atheist because, given the total lack of evidence among other issues, the likelihood of God's existence (especially specific Gods such as the Christian one) is exceptionally small. I do not outright claim his non-existence, because that is the same as claiming that he does exists.

 

[dingdong]

Guys give it up. No point to share your views. Its obvious she will not listen despite saying she will.

That's exactly right, all we have is views because there is nothing tangable out there, how can you say I'm not listening? I'm listening but you're not saying anything.

 

[Simondo86]

Why would anybody need to take this offer. If an indivdual sees what they have done as a sin then they know it is wrong, if we ask for Gods forgiveness and show love, not hate, towards one another then he shall forgive
'ask and it shall be recieved'

 

[dingdong]

Problem is that you just made a positive claim yourself, so now it's up to you to prove that God does not exist. You can claim that there is insufficient evidence, but you cannot then come to a conclusion that God does not exist without providing evidence of your own.

Your example is also useless because if refers to something for which evidence can be used against you. However, even though I can use information about the human body and other such evidence as examples as for why it is incredibly unlikely that you can fly, I cannot outright claim that you cannot. When we're talking about God, even that little bit of evidence I had no longer exists - flying is tangible, God is not.

There is certainly no reason for you to believe in a God. However, you cannot claim there is no God without giving reasons of your own. I am an atheist because, given the total lack of evidence among other issues, the likelihood of God's existence (especially specific Gods such as the Christian one) is exceptionally small. I do not outright claim his non-existence, because that is the same as claiming that he does exists.

I somehow don't think they will agree with you because the way you're putting it makes it seem they don't believe because they think there is a God, they believe because no one can prove that there isn't.

We are alive and living now, we see hear smell and feel things around us and we react and interact with them, we have moved on from a time when we knew very little about our surroundings to a time when things around us are not so scary, we don't know it all and I doubt if we ever will but the last thing we need worry about is things we can't see hear smell or feel, if we don't then there is no end in sight for us, I thought we had moved on from the 'you imagine it and it could be out there' way of thinking, or I thought we had until I found this forum, now I'm not so sure we have moved at all.
Some of us are moving forward, so the religious people do not need to stay in the dark ages while they believe.

 

[dingdong]

Why would anybody need to take this offer. If an indivdual sees what they have done as a sin then they know it is wrong, if we ask for Gods forgiveness and show love, not hate, towards one another then he shall forgive
'ask and it shall be recieved'

It was said tongue in cheek, it was not meant to be taken seriously,
I thought more people would come back with a few wise cracks than actually did.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I somehow don't think they will agree with you because the way you're putting it makes it seem they don't believe because they think there is a God, they believe because no one can prove that there isn't.

I didn't mean to put it like that, if that's how you're reading it. People believe in things for all kinds of reasons.

We are alive and living now, we see hear smell and feel things around us and we react and interact with them, we have moved on from a time when we knew very little about our surroundings to a time when things around us are not so scary, we don't know it all and I doubt if we ever will but the last thing we need worry about is things we can't see hear smell or feel, if we don't then there is no end in sight for us, I thought we had moved on from the 'you imagine it and it could be out there' way of thinking, or I thought we had until I found this forum, now I'm not so sure we have moved at all.

Relying entirely upon your senses for information is a very bad way of going about things. For example, how do you sense time? The ancient Greeks relied on their senses and came to the conclusion that trees cause wind. Many religious people claim to hear or feel God - as far as your logic is concerned they are correct, because their senses tell them so. "You imagine it and it could be out there" is incredibly important to modern science, as it stops us from being closed-minded on all subjects. Science does not deal in facts, and that quote is exactly the reason why. That is something that we do not want to try and move on from.

Some of us are moving forward, so the religious people do not need to stay in the dark ages while they believe.

You assume that losing religion = moving forward. It doesn't. Losing the heavy influence of churches is an improvement, but for individuals, religion is not necessarily a barrier at all.

 

[dingdong]

You assume that losing religion = moving forward. It doesn't. Losing the heavy influence of churches is an improvement, but for individuals, religion is not necessarily a barrier at all.

Losing religion will be the single most advantageous thing humanity will have ever done for itself, just as children start to grow up when they stop believing in Santa Claus so humanity will start to move forward.